a squadron of Resistance bombers flying in fairly close formation towards the First Order dreadnaught. Arguably, the bombers arm their ordnance quite prematurely and fly irresponsibly close to each other, the result being that when one ship is destroyed it practically wipes out the whole squadron.

So my question is:

Why did the Resistance bombers fly in such close formation and arm their bombs so early?

EDIT: I don't see this as a duplicate of Why arm the bombs early? because this question primarily addresses the flying formation of the squadron.

Because that way would've led them to trouble.
– EdlothiadDec 21 '17 at 13:00

6

In real life, all bombs have safety mechanisms such that they are not truly armed until they are some distance away from the bomber (as measured by some scheme such as: air speed, barometric pressure, rotation, acceleration, etc.). Also, even fully armed bombs do not chain react that way. Military bombs are designed to be pretty safe for a wide range of pre-firing conditions.
– Brock AdamsDec 21 '17 at 21:08

Bombers are slow and ungainly, leaving them vulnerable to enemy star
fighters during attack runs. For protection, they depend not just on
fighter escorts but also on each other. Resistance flight instructors
teach bomber pilots that it is essential to fly in a tight formation,
opposing attacking fighters with overlapping fields of fire. The rear
and ventral turrets offer a potent defence against attackers
approaching from below or from the rear, but are less effective
against threats from above or in front of the bomber squadron.

The bombs themselves weren't armed until the bombers were directly over the nose of the dreadnought (pictured below) and were within mere seconds of being dropped. It was just bad luck that this happened at almost exactly the same time as a TIE wing ploughed through the bomb bay of one of the bombers, causing a chain-reaction.

Can I propose an edit to add that the Resistance bomber formation was probably built to create the imagery of a B-17 formation as often depicted in ww2 material (where most of the space combat is drawn from). The bombers are even named SF-17s for goodness sake. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_box
– Wraith LeaderDec 21 '17 at 13:23

6

Also, the SF stands for StarFortress evocative of the names of the B-29 Superfortress and B-52 Stratofortress. The B-17 was called the Flying Fortress.
– vynsaneDec 21 '17 at 13:55

2

@vynsane right? I'm half surprised they didn't name the X-Wings T-47 and new A-Wings as T-51D it's almost too blatant at this point, as soon as I saw that formation appear on screen I knew exactly what they were trying to do.
– Wraith LeaderDec 21 '17 at 14:02

5

Love how the complaint is formation and not "dropping bombs" in a vacuum.
– alemusDec 21 '17 at 19:33

4

You're probably better off not including that image; it's impossible to tell what it's depicting due to how dark (and cropped) the shot is.
– TylerHDec 21 '17 at 21:31